Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

JoshuaInNippon writes "Might we one day be able to use our cell phone cameras to pick out the best piece of meat on display at the market? Some Japanese researchers seem to hope so. A team of scientists is using infrared camera technology to try and determine the tastiest slices of high-grade Japanese beef. The researchers believe that the levels of Oleic acid found within the beef strongly affect the beef's tenderness, smell, and overall taste. The infrared camera can be tuned to pick out the Oleic acid levels through a whole slab, a process that would be impossible to do with the human eye. While the accuracy is still relatively low — a taste test this month resulted in only 60% of participants preferring beef that was believed to have had a higher level of Oleic acid — the researchers hope to fine tune the process for market testing by next year."

Seriously, I would love some objective metrics for tastiness. I feel meat and vegetables have been selected for all the wrong things - resistance to herbicides, vibrant color, durability during shipping - because these are what consumers can see through the shinkwrap at the store. If we could put a number on how "zesty" tomatoes taste, then there would be an incentive to sell tomatoes that taste like tomatoes.

Alas, tastiness is not an objective trait. However, with the understanding that a trait is subjective, one can make objective measurements of how many subjects relate to an object in a particular way. One could presumably therefore objectively determine which tomatoes will taste zesty to the largest number of people.

Unfortunately for your opinion, I and 100,000 years of human existence must disagree. While tastes in things can be very subjective, from a biological standpoint, humans are wired to selectively prefer foods containing fat, sugar and salt.

If we can check for these in food samples via technological means, than we can infer that foods that meet these requirements can be considered tasty or alternatively preferable to foods that fail to meet these requirements.

Having had Japanese beef of all price levels, I can safely say that most of it is overrated and overpriced. It reminds me of the Japanese' impression of American workers, actually.

Good beef should be marbled. This gives it a good tenderness and provides flavor. However Japanese beef is all too often over-marbled leading to a greasy mess that tastes less like beef than a mouthful of fat.

The best beef cows are in the US and have far lower levels of marbling than the famed "Kobe beef". It's not a matter of how coddled the cows are until they are slaughtered, it's all about breeding stock.

So while the Japanese may find a way to rank their beef using IR, they are still stuck with the same old greasy, mushy slabs of fat.

Over-marbled? You're fucking insane. The fat is where the flavor is. I've had a lot of delicious beef here in Panama but most of it takes quite a bit of gnawing. The only truly tender steak I've had yet was at the Panamonte in Boquete. None of it has had the massive marbling of the Porterhouse steaks I buy at the Lakeview market in Nice, CA. My lady who makes me overcook her steaks (medium well) adores them. I eat my steaks medium, and I adore them also.

I used to like raw meat, but I lost my taste for it. I used to tell them to show the cow a picture of fire, and lead it to the table:) medium is basically the last point at which I think you still get the full flavor of the meat, but it's cooked enough to be reasonably digestible. Anyway, I like the flavor of cooked meat. Maybe my digestive tract is voting.

It is great fun to eat steak tartare or carpaccio with americans or english people at the table. their faces get actually bluer than the meat !

In my experience, there seems to be a correlation between tender, juicy, and good. there must be a cause for all 3 to be linked... I'm happy if we can pinpoint it, though leery of the ensuing artificial manipulation we can trust meat producers to engage in.

You're eating with the wrong Americans then, I've never been out with anyone who's ordered beef beyond medium rare. The problem with steak tartare is that ground meet is highly prone to parasites and other contamination, and from what I read from the heath reports involving restaurant food poisoning that hasn't changed.

It's been my experience that in Panama, they may cook your steak properly, or it may be one shade too done. More useful information: seafood is usually great, but don't get the mixed seafood, it's always chewy.

seafood is usually great, but don't get the mixed seafood, it's always chewy.

That's actually a good suggestion for every place I've been so far. It's also good idea to generally avoid any "seafood special" for the same reason -- both are often the leftover, older seafood the restaurant is trying to get rid of before it expires.

Duration is next to irrelevant by the way. Temperature is the only important thing. You can leave a steak in the oven at 50-60 degrees Celsius for 12 hours, and it will still be perfect!

Other than the fact that you are flirting with the upper edge of the 'danger zone' (that range of temperatures at which bacteria grow fastest), sure. You're also flirting with meat that will be extremely dry even though it appears to be in the 'medium' range, as those temperatures are sufficient for the water in the meat to depart, but insufficient to melt the fats and collagen/connective tissue.

Slow cooking is the new trend for the best cooks in the world. (Well actually it's not that new anymore.)

It sounds like you are talking about sous vide, which isn't slow cooking but is cooking at the intended final temperature until the meat reaches that temperature. (Slow cooking isn't actually a professional culinary term, though colloquial use is roughly analogous to what is professionally known as braising and is done at 80-100 degrees.)

Sorry, but practical evidence out of my kitchen disagrees with your statements.I did it as I said. It was so soft, I could sometimes cut it without a knife!

Yes, I’m aware of the bacterial danger zone.:)That’s why you can’t just buy any meat from anywhere.But everything above 60 degrees Celsius, for hours, is usually good enough.Up until now, I never got any trouble, and so did my guests. So my theory looks sound.:)Also, as star cooks cook that way too... well, they would get into biiig t

Duration might be irrelevant in cooking a steak if your goal is to get it to a specific temperature, rather than actually make it taste good.

For many people (who enjoy steaks at least), the perfect steak is a slight char on the outside (which helps seal in the interior juices and serves to kill any bacteria) and fairly rare and juicy on the inside, just enough to melt the fats but not let them all drain out. This is best done by high heat for a short period, ie it's pretty hard to do when you cook the enti

As I noted in previous post, his duration is far too long. However, it can be quite long compared to normal steak cooking times.

But to get that 'char', or better, a sear, many of us turn to a blowtorch to apply an intense level of heat in a very localized way to keep the inside perfectly cooked while getting a nice maillard reaction on the outside.

Searing your steak doesn't actually 'seal' anything in, it just caramelises the outside.Random Google cite. [about.com] It does still make your steak tastier just like everyone believes, so who cares about the details?

Re: bacteria, not too much of a problem with beef. Chicken and pork tend to be covered in salmonella which is bad news if you don't cook it properly, but beef bacteria are relatively benign and aging beef (see: growing bacteria) is a common way to develop its flavour. I don't know if it's common practice in the USA though, it sounds like something the FDA would have strong words about.

From talking to chefs and chemists, beef is just getting better as it goes grey and slightly smelly but once it goes green or shiny you're looking at trouble. The bacteria start to break down the proteins in the meat the same way a marinade does. Yes, I deliberately keep steak until after its 'use by' date; no, I've never got food poisoning from it; no, I'm not brave enough to serve it to guests;)

I'm one of those wacky people who prefers steak well done. Not a hint of pink. Most people object to "ruining" a good steak by "overcooking" it, but after trying the whole spectrum from rare to medium-well steak a number of times and trying to make them an "acquired taste," I've come to the conclusion that I just prefer well done and always will.

I suspect it may be partly genetic, since I've read that the sense of taste is actually quite variable and some people can even taste substances that others canno

So while the Japanese may find a way to rank their beef using IR, they are still stuck with the same old greasy, mushy slabs of fat.

It's sounds more like what you've had is Japanese beef that's been ill prepared. The heavily marbled Japanese beef is meant to be served thinly sliced rather that en slab as is American/European beef.

Good beef should be marbled. This gives it a good tenderness and provides flavor. However Japanese beef is all too often over-marbled leading to a greasy mess that tastes less like beef than a mouthful of fat.

An interesting claim considering that the marbling levels in American beef have been dropping for decades in response to customer demand for lower fat meats.

Even worse is American pork! I literally cannot cook from a 1970's cookbook without heavily modifying the preparation process and cooking times because there has been such a drop in fat levels and the pieces are so closely trimmed. This is why brining has become so popular, to replace the natural moisture and juices that have been bred/trimmed out of the meat.

I suspect the [American] fascination with Japanese beef comes from changes in our grading standards. Much of the beef graded Prime (top tier) today would have barely been Choice (second tier) forty or fifty years ago as beef is being bred for lower fat and slaughtered ever younger.

Yakiniku, Shabu shabu, Teppanyaki, Tartare, even "en slab" as you say. I've had Japanese beef every which way but I'm simply unimpressed. The fat levels in Japanese beef is simply too high which leads to greasy flavor and texture.

An interesting claim considering that the marbling levels in American beef have been dropping for decades in response to customer demand for lower fat meats.

Now, I rarely eat pork -- Porky the Skinny Supermarket Pig is nearly tasteless and one has to "do something" with it other than just toss it in the oven or on the grill to make it tasty -- and even then it doesn't have that nice flavor I reme

I'm just guessing here, but your problem might not be low fat content in the pork. Factory farmed animals tend to be pumped full of growth hormones which will make them mature fast and put on weight at the expense of tasting like... anything, really. I don't know how it works in America, but if you have farmers markets or some other access to a more rustic style of pig you might get a better meal and support your local food producers too.

yea, I live in Chile, and we might talk bad about most things from Argentina for sport, but I don't think there is anyone in the neighboring countries that would not fairly quickly admit that Argentina has some of the best beef in the World. I don't believe they even export the really good stuff either, having compared the quality of Argentina beef in both Argentina and at least a half dozen other countries. Most greasy spoon hole in the wall mom and pop type operations in Argentina will serve up steaks to

To go even further, it's not necessarily WHERE the beef is from, but what they eat while they're there. Beef from Argentina is more likely to be grass-fed than corn-fed, as is common in the US (although more Argentinian ranchers are turning to feed lots and corn because of money issues). Grass-fed beef has a lot of advantages, but economy of scale isn't one of them.

The best beef cows are in the US and have far lower levels of marbling than the famed "Kobe beef". It's not a matter of how coddled the cows are until they are slaughtered, it's all about breeding stock.

The beef I had in Kobe was, by far, the most delicious thing I've ever put in my mouth.I nearly drown in my own saliva every time I think about it. So good.... so, SO good.

The best beef cows are in the US and have far lower levels of marbling than the famed "Kobe beef". It's not a matter of how coddled the cows are until they are slaughtered, it's all about breeding stock.

In this case it is not so much about performance genetics but environment.
The US uses feedlots and grain based diets. The animals manifest this in receding jaw structure, and poor feet. This comines to put the fat subcutaneously along the back. Upto 3 inches deep compared to the natural grass feed envir

Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different. If you "try and determine" (conjunction), you succeed at it and the "try" part is rather redundant. If you "try to determine" (preposition), "to determine" becomes the object of "try".

You can start modding this down now, or making fun if you haven't the points.

Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different.

"Try and" is in fact the older expression, and is closer to the core meaning of "try". Here's the earliest usage --

They try and express their love to God by their thankfulness to him. -- J. Sergeant, 1686

"Try" taking an infinitive only goes back to a 1697 poem of Dryden's (though there's a cognate usage of "trial" that goes back to 1683).

Age isn't the main indicator of which is better, of course. The point is that once upon a time "try" didn't mean "attempt"; that's a secondary meaning that it was gaining in the late 17th century. The original meaning, which it still has, is "test, prove, experiment", as in "Try before you buy", or "I shall try this infrared camera technology and, I hope, thereby determine the tastiest slices of beef".

In that sense "try and" makes considerably more sense than "try to": the implication of "try and determine" is that two intents are behind the one action, i.e. "I will conduct an experiment" and also "I shall (I hope!) determine". It's not actually being used as a modal verb, in other words.

The short answer is: you're fighting the losing side of a 300-year-old battle, and isn't it fun what you can find when you actually take the time to look in a dictionary?

Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different.

"Try and" is in fact the older expression, and is closer to the core meaning of "try". Here's the earliest usage --

They try and express their love to God by their thankfulness to him. -- J. Sergeant, 1686

"Try" taking an infinitive only goes back to a 1697 poem of Dryden's (though there's a cognate usage of "trial" that goes back to 1683).

Age isn't the main indicator of which is better, of course...

Yes - I have this silly tendency to think that if it "parses" better it must be better. To me, the preposition + infinitive means try(action) while the conjunction + simple form means try();action, where the action is the implied object (argument) of try(). But then again, natural languages don't always make sense. My native tongue is Spanish, which is a shining example with its double negation.

The point is that once upon a time "try" didn't mean "attempt"; that's a secondary meaning that it was gaining in the late 17th century. The original meaning, which it still has, is "test, prove, experiment", as in "Try before you buy", or "I shall try this infrared camera technology and, I hope, thereby determine the tastiest slices of beef".

Thanks for the info. Fun thing, I have been schooled and I my opinion (about what we should be using now) stays va

If the last sentence of my post was rude -- and it wasn't nearly as rude as your entire post -- that's still not much excuse for misrepresenting me. The only really important piece of information I presented was that the core meaning of "try" is "test". Obviously words have secondary meanings; if you take the time to read my post, you'll find that, amazingly, I actually said that.

The dictionaries you cite do not contradict any of the factual data I presented; rather they confirm my claim about the age of th

I feel like an ass now. Honestly, I did *not* intend to come across as snarky or sarcastic or touchy at all. I really understood the bit in dictionary.com as similar of what you explained to me but opposite as to which is the newer form, and the whole point (change in usage and the logic behind "try and") is new information to me which I appreciate. I'll read both again to sort it out.

When I said "my opinion stays valid" and "I will not go gentle [into that good night]", it was about the infinitive being so

From personal experience:A medium-grade piece of meat, prepared the right way, beats the best meat, prepared the wrong way.The wrong way, is what most people think is normal.

The right way goes like this:Think about the actual chemistry.1. Fat does make it tastier! Marbling is a good thing! (Also if you stuff yourself with pure starch and sugars [including what is called “bread”] it’s not the fat that’s making you fat.)2. The higher the temperature, the more you wreck the meat. That’s a no-brainer. So the lower, the better. Which takes a really long time, but does not really cost more in energy. The optimal temperature is the lowest one, which still allows protein coagulation, but as little “sweating” / water evaporation as possible. So from 50 to a maximum of 80 degrees celsius. For a big roast, this can easily take from 4 to 12 hours! But remember that at 50 degrees, you could practically leave it in there forever, witout any negative effects.3. Now of course you get a problem, since this will not lead to much browning. But the browning creates important flavors! So you have to fry it just as much, to get the Maillard reaction to brown enough of the outer crust, for it to be like you want it. And here lies the problem: This overheats the core too, you lose water, and the meat becomes tough as leather. But I found a nice hack, to prevent that: Right before frying, cool the meat as close to the freezing point as possible (but not actually freezing, since the ice crystals are bad). Do it slowly, since you want the core to be cold! Which protects it from the heat.4. Always first fry, then put it in the oven. Not the other way around. Because else, the cooling method does not work, and you also will not know when to take it out, so that it’s perfect after the following frying. When you can check it in the oven, it’s much easier, because it’s a matter of half an hour to an hour between good and bad. Not a matter of seconds!

So in short:1. Cool close to freezing point.2. Fry as short as possible. Always stop, as soon as the core gets over 50-80 degrees Celsius.3. Put in the oven at those 50-80 degrees. (Buy a oven thermometer, or even better: A roast thermometer with a needle. Because your oven can be off by up to 20 degrees Celsius!)4. Wait until you think it’s good. This is a matter of experience and temperature. But at 80 degrees, a 2-person roast can take 4 hours. The same one an 55-60 degrees, can take 6-8 hours! Check every half hour. While doing something else (I work from home in parallel.)5. Notice that it has lost no juice. This is an indicator that you did it right. But since you can’t make any gravy without that juice, you have to use something else. Like that concentrated meat juice & co you can buy in the supermarket. Add a bit whine perhaps, a bit mixed pepper, real butter, spring onions if you like them... you know the drill.6. Enjoy your 5€/kg meat which tastes like >10€/kg meat! And the feeling of having done cool science/chemistry at the same time!

The 'right way' depends entirely on the cut of beef and the intended final product. A chuck is treated differently from the round which is treated differently from the sirloin. Roasting produces one result (depending on the cut you are using), braising a different result, browning yet another... etc. etc.

5. Notice that it has lost no juice. This is an indicator that you did it right. But since you can't make any gravy without that juice, you have to use something else.

It sounds like you are making a roast of some kind... (but I can't really tell as you've failed to specify the cut and intended final product), but you've badly botched the chemistry. The reason the meat appears to have 'lost' no juice is that you haven't produced any in the first place. The primary source of 'juice' isn't the water you expend so much effort in not losing, but is the collagen and other connective tissue in the roast, which doesn't start to melt until roughly 82 degrees. (Which is why a sirloin roast, high in fat but low in connective tissue, can be dry roasted and served rare, but chuck roasts which are filled with connective tissue are braised and always served well done.)

Further, you're cooking cycle [near freeze - browning - cooking at too low a temperature] is a method precisely designed to produce an outer layer of meat that is overcooked with the bulk of the interior badly undercooked.

Enjoy your 5/kg meat which tastes like >10/kg meat!

I can't think of a single cut of beef that would be 'improved' by your faulty method. From your description it sounds like you are covering the faults in your cooking method with store bought flavor additives rather than not inducing the fault in the first place.

The 'right way' depends entirely on the cut of beef and the intended final product.

Sorry, but that the first part of that sentence is the typical excuse of the bad cook and the second part: Nobody intends to have a dry part of meat, so what's your point?

Sorry, but the first part it chapter and verse in the manual of a professional cook. A chuck is going to respond differently than a sirloin, and a round will respond differently from either. In each cut the proportions of muscle, fat, and connective tissue

I'm a vegetarian (don't trust meat industry, as opposed to being against eating it), but you make me almost want to buy a slab of meat and try your procedure. Maybe if I'm ever preparing for someone else...

Or buy a slow cooker, stick the meat in there and leave on "Auto" for 8 hours. Do it before you go to work, and come home to the softest, tastiest meat you've ever had. I swear you could cook old saddlebags this way.

As a rancher (and a geek) I've done some research into this, including raising and feeding different breeds of cattle different feeds. The result? All marbling does is add extra fat. If you overcook your meat, the fat keeps it from drying out, and makes it more tender. If you don't overcook your meat, even the leanest cut can be tender and juicy.

As for flavor, yes the flavor is in the fat, but more fat doesn't mean more flavor. What the cow is fed determines the flavor MUCH more than how much intramusc

Might we one day be able to use our cell phone cameras to pick out the best piece of meat on display at the market?

How will this help once everyone has it? Let's assume 1 in 4 are "good". If all the meat was bought, then 1 in 4 people would get good pieces. After everyone has this technology in their phones... 1 in 4 people will get good pieces. I fail to see any net benefit.